Feel My Eyes, It’s That Preliminary Vision
We somehow managed to miss the “Initial and Preliminary Vision” for the greenway, but the Old West Side Association reprints it in its latest newsletter. Remember: the people responsible for this document actually have some influence over local politics.
There’s something about Ann Arbor…
Yes. Yes, there is.
Its one-of-a-kind name conjures an image of a delicate intervention within an Arcadian landscape.
A delicate intervention? “Um, Bob, we don’t really know how to say this, but your consumption of distilled spirits is, well — hey, look at that Arcadian landscape!”
This interplay of context and aspiration continues today; much of “Tree Town’s” enduring charm stems from the way potentially conflicting forces somehow find a state of charged reciprocity.
Translation: the “context” of 60’s-style liberalism and the “aspiration” to astronomically high property values are “potentially conflicting forces,” but they somehow come together, and students get “charged” for it in the form of higher rents. Not sure where the “reciprocity” part comes in, though.
The synergistic expression of contrary and complementary characteristics will be the Allen Creek Greenway.
See above.
Hey, come back, Reciprocity and Synergy! You’re not done here yet, not with Symbiosis taking the day off:
The opportunity exists to create a reciprocal, synergistic and beneficial relationship between the land, land use, and creekshed in the Allen Creek valley, and the Greenway’s relationship to other parts of the City and to the Huron River.
And while a normal piece of land in a floodplain might be used to avoid flooding or something, the Greenway will do nothing so prosaic; instead, it will
express the presence of water by incorporating progressive practices to manage rainwater as an asset.
But most importantly, the Greenway will
be a distinct place with a sense of coherence that unites its entirety and provides a fluid sequence of experiences, each considerate of the changing edge conditions.
Did anyone else just have a flashback to sophomore differential equations? In any event, “a sense of coherence” is something that’s sorely needed.
This guy should write the advertised descriptions for McMansion enclaves (i.e.: “Serenity is yours in Blueberry Dog Run Cove”) in the Sunday issue of the Ann Arbor News…
The florid prose is over the top!
posted by OFWinsurgent on April 25th, 2006 at 12:36 amWow, they write as indecipherably as architecture students.
posted by Brandon on April 25th, 2006 at 1:41 amWhat a load of shit. Pro greenway or not that’s mind blowingly pretentious crap.
posted by BG on April 25th, 2006 at 1:51 amThe full document is posted on the greenway task force website.
http://www.ci.ann-arbor.mi.us/greenway/greenway.htm
Reading through the resolution creating the task force, it sounds as though the task force will be making recomendations for the greenway and not determining whether a greenway is an appropriate and worthy use of city resources.
I must have missed the part where someone discussed alternatives and ruled them out, and determined that parks and rec, police, and other service departments can support this in their respective budgets.
Is there a resolution pior to this one where council determined that we would definitely have a greenway in the Allen Creek flood way?
posted by Scott TenBrink on April 25th, 2006 at 5:28 amDid anyone go to the greenway task force’s workshop on Saturday? If so, what if anything happened?
posted by DaveCahill on April 25th, 2006 at 8:35 amI stumbled onto this document this weekend and had a similar reaction. Only instead of flashing back to sophomore differential equations, I flashed back to sophomore (High School) composition, you know when kids are discovering the thesaurus.
posted by dcwp on April 25th, 2006 at 9:08 amSounds like corporate postmodernism.
posted by A Different Jon on April 25th, 2006 at 9:51 amSounds like the type of folks that use words like pro-active, paradigm shift and wholistic business approaches….Or something.
posted by Kozzie on April 25th, 2006 at 10:03 amThe guy at the library checking our books out was very polite in not commenting while I ranted about the bourgeoise CorpSpeak bullshit on those posters and how those behind them needed to be stabbed in the eye in order to save Ann Arbor. I think he’s a Greenway Sympathizer. He had an earring and long hair.
posted by js on April 25th, 2006 at 10:31 amSupport the Greenway or not; any intelligent person, on either side of this discussion, should distance themselves from this nonsensical blather.
However, in this context it is quite funny to contemplate a person who would modify anything with “reciprocal, synergistic and beneficial ” at the same time; I guess they mean its a good thing. Where’s White and Strunk when you need them?
posted by cb on April 25th, 2006 at 10:53 amI think they’re using the same lexicon guide that lists the words dialogue, impact and gift as verbs.
posted by OFWinsurgent on April 25th, 2006 at 11:04 amI used to write copy at a marketing communications agency, and I don’t remember ever writing or even reading anything this ridiculous. (And trust me, this is saying a lot.)
I think this piece is best read with some Yanni playing in the background and a cup of herbal tea at your elbow.
posted by Dave on April 25th, 2006 at 11:41 amI’m hoping that they post this description when they finally build the treeless (can’t plant trees in a floodway) brown bikepath that runs one or two feet from an active railroad, surrounded by the backs of industrial buildings, and interrupted every 50 feet by an active two-way downtown street.
I like my description better.
*Scott Tenbrink* “Is there a resolution pior to this one where council determined that we would definitely have a greenway in the Allen Creek flood way? ”
Nope. They’ve ‘decided’ on the location for, and I’m being polite here, suspicious reasons. If you’ve followed any of the greenway taskforces discussions, you’ve been watching the taskforce members slowly come to the realization that they can’t really build a meaningful greenway in area that they proposed….the floodway/floodplain together with the slender right of way, together with all the street crossings makes the constuction of a honest to god green-greenway impossible.
It will be a very expensive bikepath, and nothing more, unless they make radical changes…..like buying up large swaths of land on either side of the railroad tracks.
posted by todd on April 25th, 2006 at 12:32 pmAre we going to have more 70+ year olds getting hauled into court for trespassing once they foist the Greenway on top of an active and busier railroad right of way? What part of putting a Greenway in the way of 1000’s of tons of rail traffic is “reciprocal, synergistic and beneficial relationship”? Usually when you make a Rails to Trails path ya get rid of the active railroad first. Plus, hear me out, the path just ain’t all that purty. Man I wish the Ann Arbor Railroad was busier and just killed this plan outright - but then we’d probably hear plans to make an elevated Greenway, just like they are in that Ann Arbor of the East http://www.thehighline.org/
posted by Thomas Cook on April 25th, 2006 at 1:42 pmCome on, people. What happened to your synergistic reciprocity?
posted by Heidi on April 25th, 2006 at 1:55 pmLadies and gentleman, may i introduce you to Peter Osler.
posted by Jargon Watch on April 25th, 2006 at 2:08 pmLet’s not exalt form over substance.
What happened at Saturday’s meeting?
posted by Dave Cahill on April 25th, 2006 at 2:18 pmIt is my destiny to always leave this blog more confused than when I start reading it…
posted by logtar on April 25th, 2006 at 2:36 pmUh, David…I don’t think I have seen one comment above exalting form over substance. Quite the opposite, actually, and that’s the point with this whole greenway. A lot of gesturing, postulating, conjecture, fear-mongering, disparaging, and hand-wringing but not a lot of substance. This laughable bit of archispeak that has been written just weakens the argument even further.
posted by Jargon Watch on April 25th, 2006 at 4:15 pmSo what happened at Saturday’s meeting? Or is this item merely about textual criticism?
posted by DaveCahill on April 25th, 2006 at 5:57 pmOr is this item merely about textual criticism?
Of course it is!
posted by ann arbor is overrated on April 25th, 2006 at 6:08 pmDaveCahill,
I’d summarize if I could, but I didn’t go to Saturday’s workshop. CTN is recording all the Task Force meetings plus the Speaker series with a replay schedule (and by request), BUT NOT the workshops. To give a balanced presentation of what’s happening in each small group wouldn’t be impossible, but it’d be a bit of a challenge.
The minutes that Margaret Wong was compiling (initially, at least) for the Task Force meetings were pretty detailed (not quite a transcript but it seemed like all the verbal exchanges were summarized). Not bad if you don’t want to sit through in real time watching CTN replays.
So DaveCahill, I guess that if you want to find out what happens at this coming Saturday’s (29 April) workshop, which is supposed to focus on “Site-Specific Potentials” you’ll have to go yourself. If you do, how about reporting back?
Regarding the Vision Statement, a few weeks ago, when I was helping to distribute that edition of the OWS Newsletter to 50 of my neighbors, I did the delivery in fluid sequence, with due consideration of each house’s changing boundary conditions. After all, some of my neighbors had, by then, begun integrating new plantings into their lawn extensions. One had even cordened off a new flower bed using a Markov chain.
posted by HD on April 25th, 2006 at 8:04 pmI don’t know what stance WBWC is taking on the greenway (last I heard it was pro), but as a once and future Ann Arbor bike commuter, I don’t support the greenway as an improvement to non-motorized transportation facilities. The frequent street crossings prevent it from being useful as a cycling transportation route.
Off-street cycling facilities also clash with the city’s broader policy of integrating cycling with automotive traffic. I prefer the relatively inexpensive shared use arrows and growing network of on-street bike lanes to expensive seperate infrastructure.
The greenway taskforce has done a good job of including a number of issues in their discussions. Low-income housing, clean water, public safety (both in flooding and in open-space management), the arts, non-motorized transportation, livability, increased density, and economic development are all mentioned at some point or other. However, while I support all of these, I feel no obligation to support this greenway proposal. I fear that this collaberation will turn into a campaign claiming that if you support X (clean water, the arts, LIH, etc) you must support the greenway.
We need to seriously consider alternative options before promoting a single solution. I was hoping that this might be addressed at the workshops and, like David Cahill, was disappointed that there wasn’t a report back to AAIO or ArborUpdate. It would be great if someone who attended or is on the taskforce could comment.
posted by Scott TenBrink on April 25th, 2006 at 10:26 pmHad I written said corpspeak, I would have demanded that my name appear no where near it. Gotta hand it to them, they’re a brave bunch, actually claiming that crap. Well, maybe brave is the wrong word, but they’re something.
posted by Tim on April 26th, 2006 at 2:17 amThis too is a bit of literary grandstanding:
“…the “context” of 60’s-style liberalism and the “aspiration” to astronomically high property values are “potentially conflicting forces,” but they somehow come together, and students get “charged” for it in the form of higher rents…”
posted by Cue the sad violins on April 26th, 2006 at 9:43 amBut not inaccurate.
posted by Dale on April 26th, 2006 at 10:47 amAn article in today’s AA News entitled “Art center may swap property with city” should be linked here. Sorry, I can’t do it.
The article says that the City is considering off the northernmost Greenway property at 721 N. main to a developer. A land swap with the Ann Arbor Art Center would result in the Center getting the building at 415 W. Washington, the middle key Greenway property.
So - an anti-Greenway conspiracy is under way. Why am I not surprised?
posted by Dave Cahill on April 26th, 2006 at 11:41 amAn anti-Greenway conspiracy.
posted by Dale on April 26th, 2006 at 12:09 pmDo I sense an echo?
posted by DaveCahill on April 26th, 2006 at 12:16 pm“A land swap with the Ann Arbor Art Center would result in the Center getting the building at 415 W. Washington the middle key Greenway property. So - an anti-Greenway conspiracy is under way. Why am I not surprised?”
There’s been OPEN talk of the Art Center moving to the 415 Property since at least since January, probably before. And not everyone sees this move as anti-Greenway. Susan Pollay on 24 January 2006:
” … the Greenway as envisioned, has many different forms. And one of many forms would have it completely isolated. But many other forms would have houses and shops nearby. One new idea was bring the Art Center down to the 415 building. There are many ways you could enliven that walk. Putting it in isolation is just one vision for the Greenway. There are many ways you can make that walk wonderful.”
posted by HD on April 26th, 2006 at 1:30 pmThe conspiracy goes back much further, back to when they just happened to put railroad tracks right along the potential Greenway site.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on April 26th, 2006 at 1:53 pmDamn those robber barons!
posted by Dale on April 26th, 2006 at 1:59 pmI had a feeling that John Henry, that damned steel drivin’ man, was anti-Greenway.
posted by FAA on April 26th, 2006 at 3:12 pmOK, OK, the Greenway meeting was very civil and informative, at least at my table. It was facilitated by Grad students from SNRE who had been trained in mediation and conflict (which did not seem to be necessary). The DDA provided food. Every attendee got a binder with copies of the presentations and materials. There were about 50 people there, randomly seated in tables of seven or eight people. Hieftje made some introductory remarks. Peter Pollack gave an overview presentation for the first hour or so. Each table worked on their own for the rest of the time so I don’t know what happened at the other tables. There was a set of questions that we were to comment on in the time allotted and the facilitator and one Greenway task force member took notes at each table. The notes will eventually be posted and people were encouraged to submit any further thoughts they had to the Greenway Task Force. Our facilitator asked each question in order and we went around the table and each person gave their opinion.
While each of us had our own preferences, there was mostly agreement at our table that some form of a Greenway was a good idea, that building in the floodplain was not a good idea, that the railway should remain active (and maybe eventually provide a transportation option for the city), that the Greenway should not be set off from the city by any barriers, there should be community participation in the use and running of the various parts of the Greenway as they are established, and that we could envision a mixed-use kind of plan that included a lot of different components–flood reduction, education, arts, and so on. We talked about eventually linking up with parks like West Park and the Huron River Greenway area. There was no sense in our group that active buildings should be removed or that there should be a 20-foot green swath cut through the city.
The meeting this Saturday will focus on the specifics of what people would like to see on the three city-owned sites. I imagine it will be a similar format with each table commenting on the rest of the questions in the binder.
posted by Juliew on April 26th, 2006 at 6:20 pmSo Dave Cahill was right. They ARE trying to kill the greenway!!!
Et tu, JulieW?? For shame!
posted by todd on April 26th, 2006 at 6:47 pmHD, there has never been any talk of selling off the northern parcel to a developer.
Plus, Susan Pollay actively opposes a full-scale Greenway. She is head of the DDA (”Development is our middle name”). The DDA wants a token, useless Greenway so that it can build parking structures and goddess knows what else in the area instead.
posted by DaveCahill on April 26th, 2006 at 9:34 pmI think David’s right about one part of the conspiracy — I ALSO heard Susan Pollay wants to support the building of places people want to go to AND wants to find ways to help them get there AND get around once they’re here. IN OUR DOWNTOWN! And goddess knows what else.
My source was a staff reporter for the Ann Arbor News. I plan to FOIA some documents on the Calthorpe process. Verrrrry interesting…
posted by Dale on April 26th, 2006 at 9:46 pmWhat I want to know is whether or not people broke out into a spontaneous sing-along of Kumbayah…
posted by OFWinsurgent on April 27th, 2006 at 12:01 amI love you, Dale.
(my last all-nighter ever?)…
posted by Brandon on April 27th, 2006 at 1:12 amDaivd Cahill,
I don’t understand what use you think a “token, useless Greenway” would be to Susan and the DDA. Assuming that the DDA did want to build “parking structures and goddess knows what else in the area instead,” they would be better off opposing the greenway altogether.
Such a greenway would have more of a negative impact on the DDA than anyone.
Besides, the need for more parking is written into the whereas clauses of the greenway taskforce resolution where it points out that the 1st and William lot is necessary for “three years as new parking is developed.” That suggests that it is the council and Mayor, that have identified parking as a concern related to the greenway. I assume your DDA parking reference is to the Three Site Plan, but the support for at least maintaining the current parking supply seems to be more wide-spread than just the DDA.
posted by Scott TenBrink on April 27th, 2006 at 5:47 amDid someone really just say “goddess knows what else”?
posted by Dave on April 27th, 2006 at 12:22 pmPollay’s token, useless greenway included a little path that would have run alongside of a giant parking structure on the First and William parcel.
People should remember that Council resolutions can be amended or repealed at will. They merely express the will of Council at a particular moment.
posted by DaveCahill on April 27th, 2006 at 12:46 pmThomas, regarding the High Line in NYC — they’re putting the “elevated greenway” on an abandoned 1.5 mile-long elevated rail track. IMO, this is a great use for it. It preserves the original structure (other unused el tracks have been torn down in the city), provides an alternative path for foot and bike traffic separate from street traffic, and provides some green space for parts of town that are transitioning from mostly industrial use to residential and mixed uses.
And what’s with this “Ann Arbor of the East” thing? You’re going to scare the NIMBY’s who really need to stop worrying. Ann Arbor isn’t, nor will ever be, anything like NYC except for, perhaps, an unfair share of overprivileged white rich kids from the suburbs.
posted by Scott T. on April 27th, 2006 at 7:37 pmSoylent Greenway is People!
posted by Mind Boggled on April 27th, 2006 at 11:24 pmScott T, I’m down with the High Line, great adaptive reuse, though as a train nut I’d rather it was moving freight. I was (poorly I guess) pointing out that we ain’t NYC. The Ann Arbor of the East crack was sarcasm. As all the coasties seem to measure everything against “The City” or (ugh) LA there’s some silly people in this town that think Ann Arbor is the measuring stick (a la the t-shirts on campus that say “Harvard - The Michigan of the East”. Shit, I’m from Flint, Main and Liberty looks like midtown Manhattan in comparison to downtown Flint but Flint’s got it all over Ann Arbor in coney islands and bruising minor league hockey.
posted by Thomas Cook on April 28th, 2006 at 3:13 pmYeah, I missed your point, Thomas. I think because the greenway supporter-types biggest fear is that Ann Arbor is going to start to look like Manhattan. Which is laughable. So they wouldn’t be encouraging a Manhattan-like thing (the High Line). Anyway…
posted by Scott T. on April 30th, 2006 at 6:59 pmA ballot proposal to set a 20-foot height limit for construction on the three key Greenway parcels will be discussed at the AA Democratic Party’s May 13 meeting. No resolution will be offered, but I expect a lot of discussion on the necessity and/or practicality of such a proposal.
The idea is to put such a height limit in the City Charter through a citizens’ initiative petition drive. Forbidding significant construction would essentially “rezone” these parcels permanently for the full-scale Greenway.
posted by DaveCahill on May 5th, 2006 at 9:48 pmI expect a lot of discussion on the idiocy and/or foolishness of such a proposal.
posted by Dale on May 5th, 2006 at 10:44 pmI’m all for some sort of greenway if it proves feasible, which at this point is debatable. But I always thought it would be nice to have mixed development and have some taller buildings if possible along the greenway.
The height limit seems sort of silly to me.
posted by Young OWSider on May 5th, 2006 at 11:33 pmPeople don’t want anything meaningful built anywhere near the greenway?
Wow, what a surprise. I didn’t see that coming.
I mean, really. Totally out of left field.
posted by todd on May 6th, 2006 at 10:31 amThis proposal wouldn’t affect property “near the greenway”. It would simply say that no construction over 20 feet could happen on the three key parcels.
A greenway is supposed to be *green*, not a catch-all for various kinds of development.
The proposal would add a new Chapter 21 to the City Charter:
CHAPTER 21
RESTRICTIONS ON CONSTRUCTION
Section 21.1. No structure shall be built having a height more than [20?] feet on the property owned by the City on January 1, 206, and commonly known as 721 N. Main Street, 415 W. Washington Street, and the First and William Lot.
Putting this provision in the Charter would put the Greenway above politics.
posted by DaveCahill on May 6th, 2006 at 11:22 amAs the City Dems discuss the possibility pushing for a Charter amendment that would have the effect of “essentially rezoning” these properties, one kind of consideration is likely to be how much voter support there might be for that kind of amendment.
One useful data point: the results of the DDA’s fairly recent voter survey on the item pair where respondents were to respond on with Agreement on a scale (1) Strongly Disagree (2) Slightly Disagree (3) Neutral (4) Slightly Agree (5) Strongly Agree (Granted, the wording on 21a is somewhat unfortunate):
Item 21a: A dense downtown is a good growth strategy because it works against urban sprawl and it also encourages a mix of independent as well as major retailers.
Item 21b: More park space or green space is needed in the downtown area, even if it must reduce the amount of commercial space available downtown.
City-wide, the average score on the Density item was 3.97 or Slightly Agree. City-wide, the average score on the Sacrifice Commerce for Parks item was 3.06 or Neutral. In the Fifth Ward, the mean response on the Sacrifice Commerce for Parks was 2.93.
The methodology of the survey was a telephone protocol. There were 300 respondents. 81 of them came from the Fifth Ward. I think people might draw various conclusions from those results about how difficult/easy a Charter Amendment campaign might be. But it does seem to me that these results would be pertinent to the discussion that the City Dems have next week.
posted by HD on May 6th, 2006 at 12:37 pmThanks for this, HD! The wording of the questions is a bit convoluted…
posted by DaveCahill on May 6th, 2006 at 1:29 pm